Social Challenges of Same Sex Marriages

SHOULD SAME-SEX COMMITTED
UNIONS BE CALLED MARRIAGES –
OR SHOULD ANOTHER TERM BE
FOUND?
WE WANT TO BE MARRIED



We have strong
feelings of
attachment
We have sexual
relations
We want equal
rights
WHAT IS MARRIAGE? – CURRENT DEFINITION
Union of a man and a woman
 A desire to make a permanent commitment and to offer
sexual exclusivity towards each other
IN ORDER THAT
 The children created by their love benefit – behaviorally,
materially and psychologically
 It is my attempt to pass on the good qualities that my
ancestors developed + plus add my own positive creative
input so that my children have more positive qualities
than I have. This way the future of my descendents is
assured. Marriage and family building, when done
reasonably well, brings about ‘lineage improvement’

MARRIAGE – THE COMMITMENT AND SEXUAL EXCLUSIVITY
OF A MAN AND WOMAN ALLOWS THEM TO INVEST SO THEIR
CHILDREN BENEFIT IN 7 KEY WAYS
Concern for the children’s health and material well-being
2. Concern for their emotional well-being
3. Concern for their educational attainment
4. Concern for their disciplining and moral development – so
they act in ways that benefit the social good
5. The family is a school of love – where children learn
important social skills – forgiveness, tolerance, altruism, etc
6. Protecting the children from abuse in any form
7. Modelling of a couple relationship so the children have some
successful strategies when they build their families
If parents do their job well, the next generation does slightly better
in some or all of these areas – lineage improvement occurs.
1.
WORLDWIDE RESEARCH OVER 60 YEARS IS CLEAR:
BEST OUTCOMES IN ALL 7 AREAS OCCUR WHEN CHILDREN
ARE RAISED BY THEIR TWO, MARRIED, BIOLOGICAL PARENTS
– BY THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT THEM INTO THE WORLD.
ON AVERAGE, THEY HAVE FAR BETTER OUTCOMES IN EVERY
AREA – WHEN COMPARED TO CHILDREN RAISED IN 





Single parent homes, never married
Single parent homes, divorced
Cohabiting couples with children
Step-parenting homes
Children raised by same-sex couples
All other family constellations
5
MARRIAGE – AS PRESENTLY DEFINED - IS THE MOST
SUCCESSFUL FAMILY CONSTELLATION FOR CREATING
‘LINEAGE IMPROVEMENT’ (THE NEXT GENERATION IS A
BIT BETTER THAN THE LAST) THAT WE KNOW OF
 It
brings about social goodness by attempting to
create a safe, loving environment for each new human
being as they grow from a baby to a young adult
 Because the term marriage, as presently defined, is so
important for the social good, this presentation asks
whether committed same-sex unions should also be
called marriages – or whether it better for the social
good that they find another term to describe their
unions.
PART 1
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU REDEFINE
ANY IMPORTANT WORD SO IT MEANS
2 DIFFERENT THINGS?
LET’S REDEFINE PIZZA
 Let’s
say a country said – because the contents of
pizza and spaghetti are pretty much the same –
from now on spaghetti will also be called pizza.
 You go to a restaurant and order pizza – you want
the round one - but you get spaghetti. How do you
feel? Frustration will occur.
 Everyone will have to add new adjectives to make
sure that they get what they want – ‘I want stringy
pizza please’
REDEFINING PIZZA
 So
everyone has to now remember to add adjectives
so there are no misunderstandings. But sometimes
people will forget – “I just ordered 300,000 pizza’s”
– and he gets 300,000 spaghetti portions. This he
doesn’t need – who is to blame – who should pay?
Lawyers Please
 Society doesn’t need this lack of clarity or endless
lawsuits – for this reason we create, as reasonably
as possible – one word for each different item or
state of being.
 Though trucks and cars have similar legal
requirements imagine calling them both trucks.
REDEFINE MARRIAGE – AND EMBARRASSMENT,
CONFUSION AND LAWYERS WILL FOLLOW
 You
meet someone – they say: “I’m married” – you think
hetero-sexual – and ask: “What’s her name?” – and you
end up embarrassed when he says ‘gay’.
 Someone, in any media, forgets to use the defining
adjective “We’re holding a marriage enrichment seminar
this weekend.” – and a gay or lesbian couple turn up but
the seminar is focussed purely on heterosexual couples lawsuits will follow.
 Books from the past have to be re-written or new titles
given to erase possible embarrassment – they might be
seen as homophobic. Book: ‘Choosing the Right Marriage
Partner’ – can’t have that title if no references to gay or
lesbian marriage is there.
DIFFERENT THINGS ARE CALLED DIFFERENTLY TO AVOID
CONFUSION FOR EVERYONE
Satsuma
Clementine
Tangerine
Mandarine
NO-WHERE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DO WE USE THE SAME
WORD TO DESCRIBE 2 QUITE DIFFERENT STATES OF BEING
WHEN THIS WORD IS IMPORTANT TO US
Heterosexual
Marriage
Gay/Lesbian Union
Opposite sex
Same sex
Can bear their own
children
Can’t bear their own children
Majority are monogamous
Overwhelming majority involve
consensual agreement to allow
multiple sex partners (we’ll come
back to this later)
They are not the same – and thus cannot rightly be
defined by the same term
CONCLUSION: ALLOWING GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES TO HAVE
THE SAME TERM AS HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES WILL LEAD TO:
Confusion
 Endless moments of embarrassment
 A field day for lawyers
 All of the above will make it harder to use the word Marriage
– so people will stop using it: ‘Are you in a committed
relationship?’ – this will not help society since heterosexual
marriage defines social health.
 Since there are at least a million other words one could use
to define the ‘committed same-sex couple relationship’ – all
the above is totally unnecessary. E.g.; The term: ‘Regaled’
(re-gay-uled) is a nice word – ‘I’m going to the regalement of
John and Peter next week’

CONCLUSION
 It
would be against the public good to allow ANY
OTHER FORM of relationship to be called ‘marriage’ –
because it would just cause confusion for society.
 This is not being homophobic – this is just being
sensible. The problem would occur if any other form
of attachment relationship said ‘we want to be called
married’ – resistance would occur. It is a different form
of relationship - it needs a different term.
 Gay and lesbians have every right to create a term
of their own to define their committed same-sex
unions – but ideally they should use a term that will
not add to social confusion.
PART 2:
If the term marriage is used to
define committed, same-sex unions
– will the core attributes of marriage
be changed also? If yes, will these
changes lead to positive or negative
social outcomes for everyone else?
CURRENT CORE ATTRIBUTES ASSOCIATED WITH MARRIAGE –
ATTRIBUTES THAT TOGETHER ENHANCE THE SOCIAL GOOD
Heterosexual Marriage
Man and Woman
Aiming for Permanent Commitment
Fidelity is the goal – an exclusive
sexual relationship
Conjugal acts for intimacy with the
possibility of children
Children, on average, do best in life
when raised by their committed,
biological parents – partly due to the
strengths that come from having a
male and female role model
- Heterosexual marriage has
been around for
thousands of years
- The commitment of the
partners and their sexual
exclusivity has:
- Created social stability
- Aided the development
of children
- Created a beginning
point of community
and the foundation for
healthy civil society
PRESENT DEFINITION OF HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE CONTRASTED
MARRIAGE IF IT IS REDEFINED TO INCLUDE SAME-SEX UNIONS
Heterosexual Marriage
‘Marriage’ Redefined
1) Man and Woman
1) Any Two People (Or maybe three or
more)
2) In most developed nations some
65% of first marriages last for life
2) Not enough data
3) Fidelity is the goal – an exclusive
sexual relationship
3) Whatever forms of sexual intimacy
both partners find agreeable
4) Conjugal acts are designed for
children – and also intimacy and
connection
4) Sexual organs are for intimacy and
pleasure
5) Children, on average, do best when
raised by their committed, biological
parents – partly due to seeing a male
and female role model
5) Children can be raised but it’s not
important for children to be raised with
opposite-sex role models
Redefinition will completely change the core attributes of
marriage. Will this lead to problems for everyone?
PROBLEM 1:
FUNDAMENTAL MARITAL ATTRIBUTE 1:
ONE MAN – ONE WOMAN
Marriage re-defined would be:
 ‘Any two consenting adults who felt a desire to make a
life-long commitment to each other.’
There are key problems with this redefinition:
1) If there are rights and benefits to be gained – ANY two people –
whether they have sex or not - will be able to access those
benefits by going through a ‘marriage ceremony’ – and
ultimately the term marriage will become meaningless
2) Once – in law – you establish that marriage is about personal
connection – not about lineage improvement – then there is
nothing to stop the establishment of ‘polyamorous marriages’ –
polygamy and more.
IF YOU REDEFINE MARRIAGE FROM MEANING ‘LINEAGE
IMPROVEMENT’ TO ‘PERSONAL FEELINGS OF ATTACHMENT’ THEN
ANYONE CAN GET MARRIED TO GAIN THE LEGAL BENEFITS



Traditional heterosexual marriage exists primarily for the benefit
and enhancement of the children – it is a lineage improvement
form of bonding that ultimately enhances the social good.
However, once redefined – marriage will mean something very
different – ‘We have personal feelings of attachment and we want
the legal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy’.
The trouble with this is that ANY two people could ‘get married’
because of ‘any feelings of attachment’ or in order to gain benefits
Two elderly women who enjoy each other’s company immensely living
together for companionship could claim marital status – and gain
whatever marital rights are on offer
 Whole immigrant families could marry members of another family in
their home culture for the sake of helping that family emigrate
 Etc

AND WHY STOP AT MARRIED MEANS TWO INDIVIDUALS
WHO HAVE FEELINGS OF ATTACHMENT
Bisexuals exist – they have feelings of attachment
 And what about people who want to establish polygamous
families ?
 Once you - in law – state that marriage is about personal
feelings of attachment and not about lineage improvement –
then there is no barrier to stop other forms of family from
emerging.
 Sadly, because these are forms of family are lineage
weakening – they give rise to higher rates of trauma in
children - social decay and rising social costs will
AUTOMATICALLY follow

MARRIAGE – ONCE REDEFINED - CAN BE CLAIMED BY
ANY OTHER FORM OF ATTACHMENT RELATIONSHIP
 Complete
the following sentence: “Polyamorous
unions (threesomes, foursomes, etc) and non-sexual
friendship unions by nature cannot be marriages,
and should not be recognized legally, because…”.
 Revisionists, once they have broken marriage away
from its traditional meaning, cannot find any good
reason why these other relationships shouldn’t be
called marriage too.
IN FACT – THIS IS A MAJOR GOAL OF MANY SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE ADVOCATES
 Prof.
Judith Stacey of New York University
expressed hope that the triumph of the
revisionist view would give marriage “varied,
creative, and adaptive contours . . . [leading some
to] seek . . . small group marriages.”
 More
than 300 “LGBT and allied” scholars and
advocates — including prominent Ivy League
professors — co-authored “Beyond Same‐Sex
Marriage,” a call to the US Congress to accept legal
recognition of sexual relationships involving
more than two partners.
IN FACT, SOME OF MOST FORCEFUL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
ADVOCATES WANT TO DESTROY THE PRESENT MEANING OF
MARRIAGE COMPLETELY – NO MATTER HOW MUCH PAIN AND
SUFFERING THIS WILL ULTIMATELY LEAD TO IN SOCIETY –
INCREASES IN DRUG ABUSE, PROSTITUTION, VIOLENCE,
CRIME, AND EVERY SOCIAL ILL WE KNOW OF
 Same-sex
couples should “fight for same-sex
marriage and its benefits and then, once granted,
redefine the institution of marriage completely
because the most subversive action lesbians and
gay men can undertake . . . is to transform the
notion of ‘family’ entirely.”
Michelangelo Signorile, Bridal Wave, OUT, Dec.–Jan. 1994.
SUMMARY – ONCE YOU RE-DEFINE MARRIAGE FROM
MEANING ‘ONE MAN – ONE WOMAN – BUILDING A
COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CHILDREN THEY BRING INTO THE WORLD’ – TO NOW BECOME
‘ANY TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE STRONG FEELING OF
ATTACHMENT’:
The term Marriage would eventually apply to so many
different forms of relationship that it would become:
MEANINGLESS.
Fewer and fewer young adults would aspire to marry because
the institution would lose its meaning – and the end result
would be less committed families – leading to increased
trauma rates, a breakdown of communities, and poorer
results for society as a whole.
THE DUTCH EXPERIENCE
The Dutch legalised same-sex marriage in 2001.
 In Holland, over the last 10 years, the number of children
now being born outside of marriage has increased
dramatically– by about 2% a year, the fastest rise in Europe.
This, of course, will lead to poorer outcomes for society as a
whole + high social spending
 It is, of course, impossible to link this rise directly to the
legalisation of same-sex marriage – but one has to seriously
question whether the Dutch have created problems for
future generations by redefining the term marriage – with
every more children being raised in more fragile
relationship forms.

SUMMARY – REDEFINING MARRIAGE ONCE – LEADS IT OPEN
TO ENDLESS REDEFINITIONS – LEADING IT TO HAVE NO REAL
MEANING AT ALL
Redefining the term marriage once opens it up to be
redefined again and again
 ‘Marriage’, the term that defines long-term social health and
well-being, would be lost as a goal for future generations.
 Family and social outcomes will be deeply affected –
everyone will suffer traumas in one way or another.
 Just because some 1-2% of the population unnecessarily
wanted to claim the word marriage.
 Same-sex advocates could have another term to define their
committed unions – and some legal rights – and marriage
wouldn’t be re-defined – and the potential for social trauma
would be avoided.

PROBLEM 2:
RE-DEFINITION OF CORE MARITAL ATTRIBUTE 3:
FIDELITY AND SEXUAL EXCLUSIVITY
 Traditional
opposite-sex marriages, on the whole,
tend towards life-long sexual exclusivity.
 Most cultures, countries or subcultures display very
low rates of infidelity whilst a few others tend
towards some 30% of husbands and 15-20% of wives
having extra-marital relationships.
 Most countries - it is seen as grounds for divorce.
 Infidelity is clearly seen as harming the social good hurting children, the other partner, and has a very
negative ripple affect onto relatives and society
RESEARCH ON COMMITTED GAY COUPLES:–
DO THEY UPHOLD THE CORE MARITAL VIRTUE OF FIDELITY?
Professors David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison,
themselves in a romantic relationship, studied 156 gay
couples, most of whom entered their relationships
expecting sexual exclusivity.
 Not one couple stayed sexually exclusive longer than
five years.
 Their conclusion:

“The expectation for outside sexual
activity was the rule for male couples and
the exception for heterosexuals.”
IS FIDELITY OR INFIDELITY THE NORM IN GAY
RELATIONSHIPS IN EUROPE
A
study of gay men in Amsterdam showed that
"men in homosexual relationships, on average,
have eight partners a year outside those
relationships.“
Maria Xiridou et al., "The Contribution of Steady and Casual
Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual
Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-103
IS FIDELITY OR INFIDELITY THE NORM IN GAY
RELATIONSHIPS
For homosexual men, the term "monogamy”
doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity.
It is …a relationship in which the partners
have sex on the outside often, hide their
resentment and jealousy, and discuss their
outside sex with each other, or share sex
partners.
Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York:
HarperCollins, 1997), 21
SUMMARY: IF THE TERM MARRIAGE WAS USED TO
DEFINE COMMITTED GAY RELATIONSHIPS:
The core attribute of sexual exclusivity – one of the core
elements that makes heterosexual marriage so valuable to
society - would no longer be part of the definition of
marriage.
 After redefinition - soap operas and movies would appear
showing married gay men discussing their extra-marital
affairs and switching extra-marital partners - making it seem
that this is all part of a healthy marital relationship.
 Young people – the 98% of heterosexuals - would become
completely confused about the core elements of marriage –
and many, many future families would suffer immense
trauma as a result. This would be cruelty in an extreme form.

PROBLEM 3:
RE-DEFINITION OF CORE MARITAL ATTRIBUTE 5:
CHILDREN DO BEST WHEN RAISED BY THEIR OWN MARRIED, BIOLOGICAL PARENTS
There are two key issues here:
1. The heterosexual population – 98% of us – have a term that
states very clearly – ‘If you want children – and you want
them to grow up healthily - then your best option is to marry,
stay sexually exclusive, and be there for you kids during their
childhood.’ All people and societies, present and future, in
order to stay healthy, need this best practice definition –
biological parents raising their children in a sexually
exclusive, committed relationship.
2. Good people who don’t want the term marriage to be
redefined – because then children will get hurt - are being
seen as bigots and law breakers
3A: RESEARCH FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD CLEARLY
SHOWS THAT CHILDREN, ON AVERAGE, DO BEST WHEN
RAISED BY THEIR OWN MARRIED, BIOLOGICAL PARENTS
All other forms of family constellation (gay and lesbian
parenting too) – even though they might try very hard,
have increased risk factors that bring about, on average,
poorer outcomes for children in almost every area of
social and well-being development.
 Society needs the best practice term – marriage as
presently defined - for the next generation of
heterosexual children to look up to. If the next generation
doesn’t have this term clearly defined and understood as
best practice, then they WILL make decisions that lead to
poorer outcomes for themselves, for their children and
for society as a whole.

BUT IF MARRIAGE IS REDEFINED – THE CURRENT BEST
PRACTICE DEFINITION IS LOST AND SOCIETY WILL SLOWLY
BUT SURELY SUFFER SOCIAL DECAY

If marriage is redefined it will say to the next generation:
 You can raise children in ANY form of marital relationship
– gay, lesbian, bisexual, polygamous – and the outcomes
will be the same. Research clearly shows this is not true.
 That children don’t need both a father and mother as role
models – they do just as well when being raised by anyone.
Research again clearly shows this is not true. Boys raised
without a father figure often struggle in their role as a
husband and father. Girls also find it harder to build their
own marriages.
WHY DON’T CHILDREN RAISED BY SAME-SEX PARENTS, ON
AVERAGE, DO AS WELL AS CHILDREN WHO ARE RAISED BY
THEIR OWN MARRIED, BIOLOGICAL PARENTS





Firstly – they are a large number of gay and lesbian parents who
would do a fine job at raising children.
But like ALL step-family or adoption situations – there are increased
risk factors that are just associated with these forms of family – often
factors that are beyond the control of the two adult parents.
E.g.; Disciplining is harder: ‘You’re not my father/mother – you can’t
tell me what to do!’
E.g.; Children raised in stepfamilies are more subject to sexual and
physical abuse by their non-biological father – this is the way life is.
E.g.; Children, especially if their gay/lesbian parents are struggling
(which sometimes they will be), are going to feel emotionally unloved
and abandoned by their biological parent(s) – ‘why did you leave me
in this mess.’ This might affect their education or cause depression.
AT THE MOMENT – WE CAN CLEARLY TELL THE NEXT GENERATION
OF HETEROSEXUAL CHILDREN THAT MARRIAGE IS THEIR BEST
HOPE OF FULFILLING THEIR DREAM OF FINDING LASTING LOVE AND
BUILDING A HEALTHY FAMILY
Once marriage is redefined, however, this will no longer be
true.
 If marriage now means:

It’s ok to have extra marital affairs
 Marriage is any type of strong attachment relations

Marriage will no longer be the best option for the 98% of heterosexual
young people – and all their remaining options are more likely to lead
to poorer outcomes for themselves and their children.
THIS IS CRUEL TO ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS
PROBLEM 3B: RE-DEFINITION OF CORE MARITAL ATTRIBUTE 5:
SAME-SEX ACTIVISTS WANT TO CLAIM AND REDEFINE THE TERM MARRIAGE –
BUT MANY GOOD PEOPLE DON’T WANT MARRIAGE REDEFINED.
Many religious people and people of conscience understand
that heterosexual marriage as presently defined –
monogamous, committed, two opposite sex parents raising the
children they have brought into the world - is VERY important
for the health and well-being of ALL children and for society as
a whole – there’s no better way to raise kids.
 They thus would want to protect the word ‘Marriage’ from
ANY group that wanted to redefine it
 Because a small number gay rights activists, however, have
militantly set about trying to redefine the word marriage to
mean something quite different - this automatically creates
conflict.

SAME-SEX ACTIVISTS HAVE JOINED TWO ISSUES TOGETHER –
CREATING A SMOKESCREEN THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BRING
ABOUT IMMENSE SOCIAL TRAUMA
We want legal
rights for same
sex couples
 It
We want the term
marriage and we
want to redefine it
would be so much simpler if same-sex activists found
their own term to define their committed unions – let’s
say ‘We’re regaled’. No one could stop them.
 They then could go on to ask society for certain legal
rights for ‘regaled couples’
 The issues then would be clearer.
 Instead, they have purposely joined the two issues
together – redefining the term marriage and gaining
access to legal rights. This is creating immense tension.
GOOD PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING PROTECT THE TERM MARRIAGE
FOR THE WELL-BEING OF ALL SOCIETY ARE NOW BEING CALLED
HOMOPHOBIC AND ACCUSED OF BEING BIGOTED
By linking the two issues together
We want the term
marriage and we
want to redefine it
We want legal
rights for same
sex couples
Anyone is deeply concerned about the negative
consequences of redefining marriage – the one term that, as
presently defined, defines social health and well-being and
protects billions of children
 Is seen as bigoted, as denying people equal rights, as
homophobic.

BY JOINING THE TWO ISSUES TOGETHER, SAME-SEX
ACTIVISTS ARE BEING INCREDIBLY DESTRUCTIVE
If governments offer the word marriage to recognise samesex unions – this negative tension between those who want
to protect the word marriage for the sake of ALL future
children – and those who want equal rights for same-sex
couples – would continue to be there for many, many years.
 Because ‘equality under the law’ is seen as a higher right
than ‘someone’s viewpoint’ – then anyone who still believes
that redefining marriage was wrong would be seen as
breaking the law – discriminating against gays and lesbians
– and they might be refused jobs in any government
department, be forced to resign from any prominent
position, not allowed to adopt or even jailed.

WE ALREADY SEE THIS HAPPENING – GOOD PEOPLE WHO VALUE
THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF MARRIED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL
CHILDREN – BEING CALLED BIGOTS AND ATTACKED




In GB recently, a loving couple who had fostered many children –
were refused another child because they didn’t feel offering the
word marriage to define same-sex unions was a good idea
Peter Vidmar, a former Olympic gold medalist and chief of mission
for 2012 U.S. Olympic Team – is forced to resign because he
activity sought to protect marriage from being redefined
Many other stories
Soon, anyone who writes anything negative about any aspect of
gay marriage – even if it is totally true - will have their career
ruined – you’re bigoted. Witch hunts – find the homophobe and
‘out’ him or her – would become part of society. Groups who
wanted the original meaning of marriage back might even need to
meet in secret.
BECAUSE SAME-SEX COUPLES WANT THE TERM MARRIAGE –
AND DON’T WANT TO FIND A NEW TERM TO DESCRIBE THEIR
COMMITTED UNIONS - Social ethics are turned on their
head
These are bad people
They are bigoted,
breaking the law people
who can’t hold public
office of any kind – just
because they believe
redefining the term
marriage will harm
children and society
These are good people.
They are allowed to
redefine marriage to
mean almost anything
- even if children and
society get harmed
SOCIAL STIGMA WOULD BE TURNED AROUND – AND SOME
50% OR MORE OF THE POPULATION WOULD NOW FEEL
STIGMATISED

By joining these two issues together
We want legal
rights for same
sex couples
We want the term
marriage and we
want to redefine it
Gays and lesbians – some 1-2% of the population – who
feel they have been mistreated by society – who have felt
cut off from and treated unfairly – would now be doing
the same to some 50% or more the population
 50% or more of the population would be now be
shunned and seen as bigoted.
 This is ridiculous and ALL totally unnecessary!

THIS TENSION IS PRIMARILY BECAUSE SAME-SEX COUPLES WANT
THE WORD MARRIAGE – THEY REFUSE TO FIND THEIR OWN TERM
TO DEFINE THEIR UNIONS AND STOP THIS DIVISIVENESS
They could find another term – E.g.; ‘Regaled’.
 Same-sex couples IS a different type of union – it should
have a different term so everyone is clear when people are
speaking
 Then they could ask for legal rights
 Marriage shouldn’t have to be redefined so it:

Accepts infidelity as being acceptable
 Means any form of strong emotional attachment.


Most people are tolerant and not bigoted – but when you
attempt to redefine a word that is so important to future
children – then there will be resistance.
THE HARM TO RELIGIONS – WHO HAVE BEEN A FORCE FOR
SOCIAL GOOD FOR GENERATIONS
All major religions are supportive of marriage for the
benefits it brings society and most do not want the present
understanding of marriage to be changed.
 Because same-sex activists want to claim the term marriage some religions are now being seen as bigoted – especially by
the younger generation
 This will lead to a decline of people wanting to associate with
their religious heritage.
 Since religions play a key role in helping many young people
develop their moral compass and offer them a safe
community setting – making religions look like they are
bigoted will harm society.
 E.g.; large numbers of young Finns resigned from the
Lutheran church during their national debate of gay marriage

SUMMARY - LAWMAKERS HAVE TO BE REALLY CLEAR IF
THEY ARE NOT TO CAUSE MANY YEARS OF SOCIAL DIVISION
Most of the social tension on this issue would go away
tomorrow if same-sex advocates found another term to define
their committed unions
 Heterosexual people – some 98% of the population – have
rights TOO – rights to word that describes their type of
union. Most don’t want it redefined so it leads to greater harm
for their children too
 Then, with an acceptable different term, same-sex committed
unions can ask if they can gain certain rights under the law.
 WE don’t have to suffer YEARS of social torment on this issue.
 There are other serious issues that have to be dealt with –
and all this is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.

PROBLEM 4:
BY REDEFINING THE TERM ‘MARRIAGE’ TO ALSO DEFINE
COMMITTED SAME-SEX UNIONS -YOU THEN HAVE NO WORD
LEFT TO HELP YOU FIX MANY OF SOCIETY’S ILLS
Marriage presently defined:
 Opposite sex partners
 Life-long commitment to each other
 Sexual exclusivity
 Work together to raise the children born of their love to hopefully
become happy contributing members of society
Most of society’s growing list of social problems are mainly due to the
fact that more and more children are being raised by only one parent
– a single parent who sometimes finds it harder to offer the emotional
support, modelling and discipline that the child needs – so their
children have a higher chance of reaching adulthood with traumas
that affect their ability to be contributing members of society
WHEN GOVERNMENTS FINALLY FIGURE AT THAT THEY ARE GOING
BANKRUPT MAINLY BECAUSE OF FAMILY BREAKDOWN – AND
THEY DECIDE TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT THE MARITAL
DREAMS OF THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION:
If marriage has already been redefined:
 Governments can no longer say: ‘More people should get
married and stay married or the state will go bankrupt’ –
because marriage redefined will include:
 Sexual infidelity is acceptable
 Any form of attachment relationship
Neither of these new definitions of marriage will start to
restore social health
ONCE MARRIAGE HAS BECOME A TERM TO DEFINE SAMESEX COMMITTED UNIONS

Governments will not be able to say:
We need more heterosexual married couples to stay together to
raise their children or our country will continue to decline
BECAUSE
 Same-sex marriage activists will say:
‘You’re being homophobic’ – and no one would want their career
ruined so governments would keep quiet.
So you would be stuck with a decaying society caused by less and less
people marrying and staying together to raise the children who they
brought into the world – a senario that will lead to ever more people on
drugs, more crimes, poorer sexual health, and much more.
You would growing social problems but NO solution – just increased
financial costs. Just because some 2% of the population wanted to
UNNECESSARILY claim and redefine the term marriage.

CONCLUSION:
The term ‘Marriage’ is very important to the health of
society.
 As presently defined it protects and enhances the lives of
BILLIONS of children the world.
 That’s just the way life is – it is best practice for human
beings – and without it all nations would go into decay.
 At the start of the 20th century, every major culture and
most minor cultures were marriage affirming cultures –
because when two people stay together to raise the
children they brought into the world, the children have a
good chance of becoming healthy contributing members
society – and marriage affirming societies were stronger
and more powerful as a result
 That’s just the way life works. We can’t change that fact.

CONCLUSION
 If
government offered the term
marriage to define the committed
same-sex relationships – core elements
of marriage would be changed.


It would mean that infidelity would
become acceptable
It would mean that any two or more
people with feelings of attachment could
ultimately claim the term and the legal
rights
CONCLUSION
This would lead to:
 To the word marriage becoming meaningless – so more
children would be born outside marriage and suffer
 Fewer young people marrying because raising children in
‘any family form is just as good’.
 Poorer outcomes for heterosexual couples, their children
and for society as a whole
 To the shaming of many good people who wanted to
protect marriage from definition
 The loss of the only social institution that could cure many
social ills we see today.
ALL THIS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY
ALL this is because same-sex activists refuse to find a
different term to define their committed relationships
Heterosexual Marriage
Gay/Lesbian Union
Opposite sex
Same sex
Can bear their own children
Can’t bear their own children
Majority are monogamous
Overwhelming majority involve
consensual agreement to allow multiple
sex partners
Find a different term – ‘We’re going to the regalement of Tom
and Pete next week’ – and many of the social struggles around
this issue will disappear very fast - and the word marriage
would be protected for the benefit of all future children